June 20, 2009

I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”

Another green-eyed woman, Mahin, aged 52, staggered into an alley clutching her face and in tears. Then, against the urging of those around her, she limped back into the crowd moving west toward Freedom Square. Cries of “Death to the dictator!” and “We want liberty!” accompanied her....

“Can’t the United Nations help us?” one woman asked me. I said I doubted that very much. “So,” she said, “we are on our own.”

105 comments:

Professor, please let us know if you reach "the moment at which Obama lost you".

I'm hoping that if it hasn't already past, it's fast approaching.

This is heart-rending stuff coming out of Iran, and the longer that it goes on, and the longer that President Obama remains above the fray offering only milquetoast heavily-qualified statements, the more disgusted I become with him.

Boy, this takes me back to the student riots I participated in 1970-72 (at Ohio State and Stanford). In my experience some of the ballsiest protesters were the women -- especially when the police were changing and throwing tear gas. They often "shamed" some of the men to get more involved.

Whether Obama has, even now, gone far enough in his condemnation of the Iranian government is open to question. I thought his last statement was better, though a number of days too late.

Yet one thing is certain: Obama's Iran strategy is in complete shambles after the events of this past week.

Obama can't possibly meet and "negotiate" with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now or in a foreseeable future.

Which only serves to highlight a deeper question as to why Obama was open to meeting Ahmadinejad in the first place.

Many Republicans and some Democrats, Hillary Clinton being one, criticized Obama for being willing to meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions. But to my mind, that wasn’t the most questionable part of Obama’s plan.

The most questionable part was why Obama was willing to meet without pre-conditions with an underling?

You would expect to see the women doing the most fighting because the women are the ones needing a revolution. The men are the Masters of servant-wives under Fundamentalist Islam. The Islam tough guys realize this and target the women demonstrators as the biggest danger to their ideal society. I recall that when Confederates won battles against the US Army where they took prisoners, the white US soldiers were allowed to surrender and taken prisoners but the black US soldiers were massacred. Freed slaves fighting back is the most personal challenge to the enslaving ruling classes.If the slaves can beat you, then that exposes the lies of the ruling class about them.

It was the women of the north that helped to win the Civil War. They believed in the struggle, whereas the women of the south -- to a great extent -- didn't want it. It's encouraging to hear about the women of Iran! I think it means that they will win!

Ah, Ms Althouse. if I may go beyond snide for a moment: If women are so 'hot', as it were, how come the measure of affairs traditionally in the hands of 'women'- most critical and important things like the rearing of children and the strength of the family - are, shall we say, unimpressive.

Perhaps you should suspend your enthusiasm until Iran's revolution passes the Valley Forge stage, if it gets that far. Please observe that the 'mob in the streets' stage is the easy part. And more important, fear the mob, any mob - they caused WWI and are a favored tool of your Adolf Hitlers and Vladimir Lenins.

I was wondering if all these Iranian women were agents of Zionist Neocons? Why else would they interfer with Ah-mad-inejad's mission to wipe out Israel? Could it be possible that free people are usually not willing to sign onto the Mass Murder of another people who have been known to fight back. "Make Love-Not Mass Murder" is a catchy slogan for the young Iranians.

It is delightful to see how feisty the women are. As well, traditionalguy makes a pretty much spot on analogy to the Civil War and black troops. Tyrants can never give any quarter to people they regard as slaves.

The Persian women I have known have been pretty sexy, and the pictures I have seen from Tehran seem to confirm this about the general Iranian female population. Let’s face it, other than Turks and maybe Kurds, most women in the Muslim world are not very attractive. At least a part of the targeting of female protestors might just be explained by a certain amount of sexual frustration on the part of some of the men. Certainly Iran has, for the last 30 years, gone to great lengths to repress women.

One of the Iranian women I knew told me that, when she was a schoolgirl in the mid-1980’s, in the dead of winter the religious police would stop women on the streets, or stop taxis with women in them and snatch the gloves off of the women to see if they had rings or fingernail polish on. Absurdly, the religious police would even go into ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS and pull the socks off of little girls to make sure they weren’t wearing toenail polish. Are these guys with serious issues or what?

So, growing up with those kinds of repression, it is small wonder that the women are so energized and committed. Good for them and my thoughts and prayers go out to them. Brava!

Kirby Olson said... It was the women of the north that helped to win the Civil War. They believed in the struggle, whereas the women of the south -- to a great extent -- didn't want it. It's encouraging to hear about the women of Iran! I think it means that they will win!

Sorry, that is garbage history. You're just projecting your feelings on today back almost 150 years to the Civil War. There was no difference in female attitudes on either side, and they played a minor role in "winning" or "losing" the War.-------------------------

Pastafarian - This is heart-rending stuff coming out of Iran, and the longer that it goes on, and the longer that President Obama remains above the fray offering only milquetoast heavily-qualified statements, the more disgusted I become with him.

I sure hate your heart being rendered and all that stuff...but wise leaders recognize the limits of American power and weigh the dangers of things like a Global Depression and stock market cut in half again if the US somehow gets stuck in a 3rd major war happening at the same time.

Eisenhower kept his nose out of China, Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, and didn't start WWIII over "heart-rending" images of freedom lovers in Hungary suffering.

Nixon stayed out of Cold War confrontations. Prague spring? TS. He backed LBJs call to stay out of it. Reagan could have cared less that millions died in Africa in various sundry wars in his term. He stayed out of the Lebanon war. He stayed out of Iran-Iraq to the max extent possible. He issued platitudes to Solidarity and about the Evil Empire. He picked his fights carefully.So did Bush II. No skin off Pappy Bush's back if various Islamoids were killing other Islamoids, or the Chinese had an internal mess at Tiennamen Square.

===================Quayle - "Yet one thing is certain: Obama's Iran strategy is in complete shambles after the events of this past week.

Obama can't possibly meet and "negotiate" with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now or in a foreseeable future."

Of course he can. Not directly, but through lesser American Representatives and envoys sitting down with Iranian representatives, whomever emerges from this. If they are willing.

Ahmadinejad is not the power in Iran. He is not quite a figurehead, pure ceremonial President that many Euros have...but closer to that end of the spectrum than having the US President's powers to change anything.

I don't think Iranian women would defend Israel's right to exist any more than Cedarford would.

I have worked with Iranian women - some were ok, one was so fucked up she would only type with her right hand. Honey, we have toilet paper here, soap too, join the modern world, ok?

I really can't get too excited one way or the other about this thing - muslims will still be in charge of Iran, regardless, and they will still desire the destruction of Israel. One set of 7th century hate mongers is the same as the other.

Of course he can. Not directly, but through lesser American Representatives and envoys sitting down with Iranian representatives, whomever emerges from this. If they are willing.

Surely you understand that Obama isn't aiming at some low-level talks between our diplomats and theirs. He wants a grand, publicity-filled rapproachement between us and the Iranians that will ensure his legacy as a peacemaker and a bridge between the west and the Muslim world.

Assuming the regime survives this (and I think they will), the atmospherics surrounding such a summit have to look a lot less appealing than they did a few weeks ago.

I see the situation in Iran has brought out all the Walter Mitty-esque bluster from the same crowd that was engaging in that sort of thing a few years ago with regard to Iraq. While it's all well and good to whine and moan about how Obama isn't talking tough enough, it's interesting to see that most knowledgeable people on the topic (including that noted leftist Henry Kissinger) are giving Obama good marks on his handling of this. Taking an obvious side in this would play into the Iranian government's hands, because they could then de-legitimize the opposition as tools of the US. Obama knows this, and other smart conservatives do as well. But, of course, the Obama Derangement Syndrome crew will keep on keeping on, I'm sure.

I don't think Iranian women would defend Israel's right to exist any more than Cedarford would.

It's not like Israel would ever come clean and inventory their nuclear arsenal to the world [as they demand of others] but they have at least 200+ nuclear tipped warheads that would pulverize Iran within minutes into complete oblivion before one Iranian missile got 1 mile off the ground. The U.S. has Destroyers with nukes parked off the coast of Iran willing and able to do the job if necessary, if for some reason Israel couldn't. I always picture Achmidinejad chuckling when he read pants pissers over here talking about Iran wiping Israel off the map with their 3rd world arsenal. They can't even do a missile test without photoshopping it.

So all the defenders of Obama staying on the sidelines were perfectly happy with Pinochet running Chile, right? I mean, it doesn't really matter who the bad guy is, we should just let the people suffer, right?

So, Dave, what do you want Obama to do? Invade Iran? Are you disappointed that Nixon didn't send the marines to take over Santiago? Were you out protesting against Nixon's failure to deploy the fleet for war games off the the coast of Chile?

The woman Cohen spoke to is correct. The Iranians are on their own. We would do them a disservice to convince them otherwise. We aren't going to invade -- not even if McCain were president.

The crackdown in Burma was worse, and all the criticism from other nations didn't do a damned thing to limit it.

As it is now, the Iranian army seems to be sitting on the sidelines, which I take to be a positive sign.

Remember the attempted Soviet coup in 1991? Apparently, we were listening in on military channels and feeding that info to Gorbachev. Of course, the Bush administration didn't let that leak during the crisis.

None of us know what's going on behind the scenes. I would be aghast if the administration were doing nothing.

I've read that Ahmadinejad's controlled media is claiming that Obama has spoken out in favor of the protesters and against Ahmadinejad's election. What would it help for Obama to do what the propagandists are claiming?

Two jumps in a week, I bet you think that's pretty clever don't you boy.Flying on your motorcycle, watching all the ground beneath you drop.You'd kill yourself for recognition; kill yourself to never ever stop.You broke another mirror; you're turning into something you are not.

Drying up in conversation, you will be the one who cannot talk.All your insides fall to pieces, you just sit there wishing you could still make loveThey're the ones who'll hate you when you think you've got the world all sussed outThey're the ones who'll spit at you. You will be the one screaming out.

You should be stronger than meYou been here 7 years longer than meDon't you know you supposed to be the man,Not pal in comparison to who you think I am,

You always wanna talk it through - I don't care!I always have to comfort you when I'm thereBut that's what I need you to do - stroke my hair!Cause' I've forgotten all of young love's joy,Feel like a lady, but you my lady boy,

You should be stronger than me,But instead you're longer than frozen turkey,Why'd you always put me in control?All I need is for my man to live up to his role,Always wanna talk it through- I'm ok,Always have to comfort you every day,But that's what I need you to do - are you gay?

I've forgotten all of young love's joyFeel like a lady, but you my lady boy

He said 'the respect I made you earn -Thought you had so many lessons to learn'I said 'You don't know what love is - get a grip! ' -Sounds as if you're reading from some other tired script

Unfortunately, you are incorrect here------------No, I'm correct. The Israelis attracted the Americans and French in as "peacekeepers". We got involved in shelling "rebel Shiites" who turned out to be the foes of the Israeli allies at the time.After the 241 Marines were easily butchered by surprise and 58 French para "peacekeepers" similarly blown up in their barracks the same day - Reagan and Mitterand both realized that the Israelis and their allies the Maronites had misrepresented details about the militias. Tried using the US and France as tools. And staying in Lebanon would mean Reagan and Mitterand would be agreeing to transitioning from peacekeeping to involvement in war on Israel's and the Maronite's side.

Neither cared to have their countries manipulated, or have their forces bogged down in a crossfire for years in the ME, and wisely pulled their forces out.

Both had bigger fish to fry than miring their troops and all their other initiatives put on hold - to be in, what the French ambassador said later - "shitty little nations".

Despite what Quayle suggests above (7:25), Obama never had an "Iran strategy" that involved getting chummy with Ahmadinejad. The whole "meeting without preconditions" was a tactical political move, part of Obama's effort to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack or Democratic nominees.

There were foreign policy implications in that language, of course. Most notably, Obama was signaling that he would be willing to take a different approach than that of the Bush administration.

The Cairo speech followed through on this idea, but it was just a speech. He was going to have to follow with something -- pressure on Netanyahu re. the settlements, most likely -- but the events in Iran have shifted attention away from Israel for the moment.

Should the Iran protests succeed, Obama will not bemoan the loss of a photo-op with Ahmadinejad.

Election Day--a.k.a. National Vote My Side or Forever Shut UP Day, as you appear to define it--it is over. We're in that what used to be defined as a lull in which we pay more attention to governing (and *plausibly* attempting to get others to change their minds about approaches & etc. before the next election).

***

Does/should it matter to you, Pastafarian, that I didn't vote for President Obama, either?

Rows of houses, all bearing down on meI can feel their blue hands touching meAll these things into positionAll these things we'll one day swallow wholeAnd fade out again and fade out

This machine will, will not communicateThese thoughts and the strain I am underBe a world child, form a circleBefore we all go underAnd fade out again and fade out again

Cracked eggs, dead birdsScream as they fight for lifeI can feel death, can see its beady eyesAll these things into positionAll these things we'll one day swallow wholeAnd fade out again and fade out again

If blood will flow when fresh and steel are oneDrying in the colour of the evening sunTomorrows rain will wash the stains awayBut something in our minds will always stayPerhaps this final act was meantTo clinch a lifetimes argumentThat nothing comes from violence and nothing ever couldFor all those born beneath an angry starLest we forget how fragile we are

On and on the rain will fallLike tears from a star like tears from a starOn and on the rain will sayHow fragile we are how fragile we are

On and on the rain will fallLike tears from a star like tears from a starOn and on the rain will sayHow fragile we are how fragile we areHow fragile we are how fragile we are.

PatCa: Be careful lest you validate criticisms of presidential activities in the past in the rush to invalidate any and all leisure activities in the present. This ongoing, bi-partisan cooperative effort can only continue to set in stone the very precedents for the future which--when things swing your way again--I daresay you'll be bitching about, as opposed to against.

I keep hearing that people are thinking in terms of the long run. I keep listening, even. But there are just these one or two, or three, little things ...

I'm all out of hopeOne more bad dream could bring a fallWhen I'm far from homeDon't call me on the phoneTo tell me you're aloneIt's easy to deceiveIt's easy to teaseBut hard to get release

Les yeux sans visage eyes without a faceLes yeux sans visage eyes without a faceLes yeux sans visage eyes without a faceGot no human grace your eyes without a face.

I spend so much timeBelieving all the liesTo keep the dream aliveNow it makes me sadIt makes me mad at truthFor loving what was you

Les yeux sans visage eyes without a faceLes yeux sans visage eyes without a faceLes yeux sans visage eyes without a faceGot no human grace your eyes without a face.

When you hear the music you make a dipInto someone else's pocket then make a slip.Steal a car and go to Las Vegas oh, the gigolo pool.I'm on a bus on a psychedelic tripReading murder books tryin' to stay hip.I'm thinkin' of you you're out there soSay your prayers.Say your prayers.Say your prayers.

Now I close my eyesAnd I wonder whyI don't despiseNow all I can doIs love what was onceSo alive and newBut it's gone from your eyesI'd better realise

Les yeux sans visage eyes without a faceLes yeux sans visage eyes without a faceLes yeux sans visage eyes without a faceGot no human grace your eyes without a face.Such a human waste your eyes without a faceAnd now it's getting worse.

Cedarford, how was that "staying out" of the Lebanon war? Wiki says our intervention allowed Arafat to escape. Granted, it could have been much worse, but we were there almost 2 years, much of it under fire from one side or the other. Don't forget about the impact the Beirut hostages had on his second term.

Pres Obama's tactics being revealed by the Iranian people's historical uprising is evidence that his leadership has never been a right wing versus a left wing issue. The effective use of a Supreme Leader to rule over the people in this world is the sole issue. Pres Obama believes that his gift to personally win over followers makes him into a true Supreme Leader.The MSM has signed on 100%. The Israeli fly in the ointment is to be soon overcome by The Supreme Obama Powers. Obama intends to show Khaimani et al. how it's done. Just wait until Friday prayers at the Obama White House for the display of Supreme Leader Obama's gift. Yet the actual revelaton this week is one of the weakness of relying on a one man Supreme Leader, even one who smiles at his loving people rather than one who sends out thugs to beat them into submission, unless of course that becomes necessary. Just ask Kissenger.

Practically speaking, we can't invade. We have no idea if the other option would be any better, and we would be spread too thin even if it were.

It's too late to want Obama to speak more strongly. He already went on his apology tour and gave Amadinejad tacit legitimacy by agreeing to speak with him, and chastising the previous administration for not doing so. That behavior emboldened tyrants around the world, and quite possibly contributed to the situation there now.

Who cares what he says now. It's too late. With that said, unless we're going to invade, he's right not to say too much. We can't encourage them and then sit and watch while they get slaughtered. We did that in Iraq in the '91 uprising. I don't want us to do it again.

Here's what Reagan did for Solidarnosc; from Time magazine, 2001:"Until Solidarity's legal status was restored in 1989 it flourished underground, supplied, nurtured and advised largely by the network established under the auspices of Reagan and John Paul II. Tons of equipment -- fax machines (the first in Poland), printing presses, transmitters, telephones, shortwave radios, video cameras, photocopiers, telex machines, computers, word processors -- were smuggled into Poland via channels established by priests and American agents and representatives of the AFL-CIO and European labor movements. Money for the banned union came from CIA funds, the National Endowment for Democracy, secret accounts in the Vatican and Western trade unions."

Believe me, I want a strong leader, and I love the idea of words being enough to topple Amadinejad's regime.

But if we offer such support, and things get worse... what then? Should we invade? That seems an almost impossible prospect.

Obama has made us seem weak. If he starts making threats now, no one will take them seriously. We will almost surely have to follow up on them, and if we don't, we will have betrayed the Iranians much as we did the Iraqis. In my opinion.

Reagan could do what he did because people knew he was a serious man. I wish Obama was a Reagan, too. But it's too late for him to start acting like one.

Kirby Olson said, It was the women of the north that helped to win the Civil War. They believed in the struggle, whereas the women of the south -- to a great extent -- didn't want it. It's encouraging to hear about the women of Iran! I think it means that they will win!

You ever hear of Belle Boyd? Southern women fully supported the Civil War, well those who believed in secession or had men fighting in it.

What they grew tired of was the want of things caused by the blockade and Union destruction.

Knox: If what Obama did was so disastrous, why are Ahmadinejad and Khomenei in the pickle they find themselves in now? It seems to me that every step of the way, the administration has done a pretty good job of responding appropriately and not giving the Iranian government sufficient rope with which to literally hang the opposition.

Pogo: Your mention of Poland as being a good example of what should be done in Iraq brings to mind the question: what are the similarities between the two situations? All that equipment smuggled into Poland, for example, is readily available to almost anyone who wants to use it in Iran, as has been quite obvious for some time.

While I appreciate your prayerful query, he'd most likely say no. Though, he also likely would have very strong words to say about leadership who takes God's name in vain to secure their own power in repressing the people.

Obama made us look weak? Are you kidding me? I might tolerate this if you acknowledged that Bush made us weak, tying up our military in two wars with amorphous goals, distancing us from our traditional allies, and demonstrating that we could do nothing to stop a nuclear program in NK.

The invasion of Iraq made Iran stronger, both as a regional player and on the world stage.

Obama has not emboldened Ahmadinejad by the mere idea that he would be willing to meet with him. Obama let the Iranian people know that he was not interested in demonizing Iran. That mattered to the people. I don't think that Obama's Cairo speech led to the uprising -- that's a claim too far for me. But Obama has refused to play bogeyman to Ahmadinejad, and that hasn't hurt anything.

Solidarnosc grew over time, and covert support helped. The restlessness in Iran has been growing for a while, too, but until a week ago, no one had any idea what form it would take, or who would rise up as the movement's Walesa.

A week ago, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had the chance to coopt the uprising under the current system in which he is the Supreme Leader. Now that he has wed himself to Ahmadinejad, they will stay together or go together. The stakes have been raised. That's the reason that the regime has been reacting with greater violence. It has nothing to do with anything Obama has or has not said.

One more thing -- the standard critique of Obama has been that he's just using words, and as nice as those words may be, they don't really accomplish anything. Silly liberals, fawning over Obama's words, thinking that they alone will change the world.

Fast forward to this past week, and suddenly Obama's critics are complaining that Obama isn't using his awesome word power, which they are certain would make (or would have made) a difference in Iran.

@Randy, the analogy between Poland and Iran is a mighty uncomfortable one.

Logistically, what does Iran need that matches the importance of a fax machine to Krakow in 1983?

I don't know, and I suspect neither does Obama or anyone in the State Dept.

And that's my point exactly.

@Peter Hoh: Obama's critics were complaining that Obama wasn't even using his awesome word power, which is the only thing he seems to know how to do. That is, he seemed unable to provide even de minimis.

Listened to Iranian-born experts who mentioned a crack in the top leadership between Khamenei and Rafsanjani. Wiki on Rafsanjani

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; born February 15, 1934) is an influential Iranian politician, writer and former president. Currently he holds the position of Chairman of the Assembly of Experts[2] (a deliberative body of Mujtahids that is charged with electing, monitoring, and dismissing the Supreme Leader of Iran) and Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran (an unelected administrative assembly that resolves legislative conflicts between the Majlis and the Council of Guardians).

Rafsanjani is reportedly associated with the Iranian business class and is hostile to Ahmandinejad and the more ideological tendency in the Islamic Republic. He has been described as a pragmatic and conservative, who supports a centrist position domestically and a moderate position internationally, seeking to avoid conflict with the United States[3].

I think those that support Obama's lameness here as smart diplomacy that will allow him to negotiate with the current regime later, may want to rethink that.-This regime will never give Obama what he wants, if he does not know that, he will. Therefore his "smartitude" eventually lead to an epic fail for him, us and the world.

He would be wise to support anyone else or at least support democracy so that the regime loses some legitimacy.-Right now they are doing what they want, because they are allowed by a world that is not sufficiently embarrassed of it's ties to restrain them.

This is an opportunity to weaken them, but that would take leadership, rather than caution. -Although Obama continues on the Bush strategy most places, he is not capable of leading his own new formulations of strength. Caution is fine, but boldness is what wins against determined evil.-We elected the anti-Bush, and I call that throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

bagoh20, what would you do? Be specific.-I've gone so far on this blog as to actually write excerpts for him to say, so I won't repeat. -He should express support for fair elections and against murdering protesters in the street and do it it with vigor. And get our allies, who love him, to do the same. Ask for sanctions, etc. Everything short of war.-We should all denounce the regime. We need to delegitimize them now while they are offering the opportunity. If we can, then the nations who are helping them like Russia will be far less comfortable doing so. In fact, they may be supporting the wrong regime if we are really successful.

The alternative is to prop up the worst possible regime long term. I just don't see why that is smart. The Iranian people and us may never get another shot like this.

Since I'm just some guy, I assume they would have even better ways to accomplish this, but it seems they do not even agree with my desired goal, ie, to weaken this regime.

" I think Obama is doing the right thing so far, but I don't think hes end goal is to be able to negotiate with the current regime."

They seem to be saying just that and certainly the defenders here of Obama say that is what makes his silence smart diplomacy.

If you look down the road, I don't see any big negative to denouncing what is going on in the strongest terms possible. This regime will not do what we want regardless. They can't now. They are tied to opposing the U.S. We can do whatever we want to them and they will fight us exactly the same - 100%.

The fact that women were so prominent reminds me of a piece P.J. O'Rourke did some years ago, and he mentioned you could tell if a movement would be successful by how many women were there. Especially young women. It is not hard to follow the logic. If young women are there, young men will be there. Moreover, these two groups define what is fashionable and popular. The women were on the side of the protester, the mullahs are going down.

I think P.J. O'Rourke was on to something and I hope so.-Many modern women sacrifice the power of their traditional roles for novel ones of far less use.-I know that my mind is thoroughly screwed up by politics because I no longer find women attractive when I find out they are too far left, which is not far for me.-At a Tea Party protest I saw a group of conservative lesbians and found them very attractive, even if unattainable. I have commitment issues, so maybe it was a double bonus subconsciously.

So pointy-headed pundits like George Will should take their brainy bullshit and stop pretending that the Iranian regime doesn't need more anti-American propaganda. It sure does and someone's got to provide it to them!

How will opposition movements around the world know that they are nothing more than an extension of American interests (oh, and a symbol of freedom) unless we blab it all over the internets? This way the mullahs will have no choice but to crack down even harder as their mortal enemy, America, will have given them a reason to.

You guys would pick a fight with a prison warden just as a political prisoner is being released. Brilliant.